Must read article

From The Brussels Journal a good discussion of the fall of Western civilization.

Fairness in reporting

Just got this email from the extremely balanced people at MoveOn.org:

Dear MoveOn member,

As early as Sunday, the White House Correspondents' Association will decide which news organization will be awarded a recently-vacated front-row center seat in the White House briefing room.

The contenders? National Public Radio, Bloomberg News—and Fox.

Yes, Fox—which we all know is actually a tool in the right-wing propaganda machine, not a legitimate news organization. They simply don't deserve the best seat in the White House briefing room—a seat held for years by journalist Helen Thomas until she retired recently.

So we're joining our friends at CREDO Action to petition the Correspondents' Association to award the seat to a real, public news organization: NPR.

Can you sign the petition today? Tell the Correspondents' Association to give the best seat in the briefing room to NPR, not Fox.

http://pol.moveon.org/nprvsfox/?id=22165-10080683-ymlEnmx&t=3

The petition says, "Give Helen Thomas' former briefing room seat to NPR, which has provided public interest coverage for decades—not Fox, which is a right-wing propaganda tool, not a legitimate news organization."

Then, please forward this email to your friends and post on Facebook and Twitter so we can spread the news faster. Already 140,000 people have signed onto this call through CREDO Action. Help us get up to 250,000 before the meeting on Sunday!

Winning this seat would give Fox legitimacy it simply doesn't deserve—not after years of race-baiting, smears against progressives and Democrats, and spreading right-wing propaganda 24/7.

So instead we're calling on the Association to award the seat to one of our nation's premiere news organizations, which has served the public for years and currently reaches an audience of 27 million.

Will you sign the petition today? Just click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/nprvsfox/?id=22165-10080683-ymlEnmx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Kat, Marika, Jeff, Duncan, and the rest of the team

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Chuck Kuecker on July 30, 2010. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

So, I went to the White House Correspondent's Association contact page and sent this:

Hello,

I understand that Helen Thomas' seat in the front row is up for a new occupant.

Please consider Fox News for this position. The left-liberal media has held this position for far too long and should give equal time to the loyal opposition.

Thanks!

++++++++++++
BEWARE!
All the links in MoveOn.org emails lead to an instant vote of agreement with whatever they are trying to sell today - found out the hard way. Once upon a time you could add your own comments to leftie-liberal "petitions" - and quite a few Adolph Hitlers and Pol Pots added their pithy comments. I guess even these mopes get smart with repeated kicks to the head...
BEWARE!
++++++++++++

H. R. 5741 - The new American slavery bill

So, The House is considering making "national service" mandatory for everyone between the ages of 18 and 42.

Sent to Tammy Gay:

Re: H.R. 5741

Have you read that interesting document, the United States Constitution? Seems there's a bit in there - Amendment 13 - that prohibits involuntary servitude in this country. Evidently, slavery was once frowned upon in America.

If you vote in favor of this, will you be also advocating repeal of the 13th Amendment? The new law probably won't stand up to judicial review, unless President Osama can pack the Supreme Court with a few more revisionists like Ms. Kagan.

Harry and Nancy's Last Stand

What we have to look forward to.

Newspapers in trouble

find a new way to raise money:

At Sharp as a Marble

A taste of the future if we don't repeal OsamCare...

BMEWS has the article...

Mosque at Ground Zero, NYC?

From Atlas Shrugs:

Maybe not...

From BMEWS:

Another view

Make Mine Freedom

1948 - and still true today. I think most Americans still believe this way, but are not motivated enough - yet - to fox the problems.

Runaway Slave

H/t Sipsey Street Irregulars



I can't believe it will get a major theater release, but one can dream...

Hitlary's going to get to help start Armageddon?

From Drudge:

The Koreans are threatening nuclear response to our naval exercises...

Hitlary wanted power - now, she's got it - can she handle it?

Our glorious leaders

Shamelessly stolen from an email I got:

Revelers from left to right: Tim Geithner, John Kerry, Khalid Sheikh Mohamad, Oprah, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Axelrod, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Party Crashers #1, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Party Crashers #2, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Bluto, Andy Stern, Bill Clinton, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Barney Frank, Kevin Jennings

More of my old writing

A nation without gun control


2/13/05


Let’s start with a simple proposition – one that has been supported by legal scholars and civil rights advocates for decades – and see where we end up.


The proposition is that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that governmental agencies in the United States will make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


First off, any and all “gun control” laws on the federal, state, or local books are unconstitutional, and will be stricken.

What will be the result of this?


A very noticeable first result will be the need for the federal government to lay off thousands of employees of the Treasury Department, whose only job is enforcing the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that relate to weapons of any type. Many, if not all, of these people can be absorbed into other federal agencies dealing with terrorist threats, for instance. This would prevent the hiring of thousands of new people for these positions. This is a definite plus for a government running on a year-to-year deficit.


The next result will be a proliferation of new gun industry business startups, to satisfy the needs of a public who has suffered under illegal regulations ever since the middle of the 19th Century. New gun shops, manufacturers, ammunition makers, and firearms accessory producers will proliferate, regulated only by local zoning laws that govern all businesses. What then?


Immediately, the price of firearms will plummet, since manufacturers and dealers no longer need to make toll calls to check on the worthiness of customers to purchase items, no longer need to buy and maintain records systems to record transfers and inventories of weapons, and no longer need to take time away from business to accommodate inspections from ATF agents.


People in need of a weapon for personal defense will be able to get one without waiting, without having to prove “need” to any bureaucrat, and without having to explain a thirty-year-old conviction for some youthful indiscretion.


There is a downside to this – ANYONE would be able to get hold of a weapon if the dealer is willing to sell him or her one. I don’t see this as being a problem, seeing that all the myriads of “gun control” laws now in existence have not ever stopped one criminal from obtaining a weapon, even weapons prohibited to the general public. A possible upside that may completely wipe out this detriment is that a burgeoning black market in illegal weapons will dry up, and with it, much corruption and violence.


A personal result, affecting everyone directly, will be that anyone who desires to carry a weapon will now be allowed to do so in any manner that they desire – openly or concealed. Let’s take a moment to consider this.


States that presently have the least restrictions on carrying weapons also have the lowest rates of armed violence and other violent crime. Criminals in such states operate with the knowledge that their next victim may well be able to defend themselves with deadly force, or that an onlooker may be able to step in and stop the criminal’s activities. Presently, in the United States, over two million instances occur every year where an armed citizen stops a crime from occurring. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, simply demonstrating that one has the means to defend oneself is sufficient to end the threat, without a shot being fired. The end of all gun laws will bring these benefits to blighted areas like Chicago, Illinois and Washington, D.C., areas in particular that suffer under the yoke of massive illegal regulation of weapons that are universally ignored by the bad people in society.


Along with all these new freedoms comes new responsibility. People now cannot sit back and expect the government to keep them safe, and they will know it. The big difference will be in that knowledge, since right now the police legally have no responsibility to stop a crime or protect anyone.


Parents will have to teach their children how to be safe around weapons. There are numerous safety courses out there now, and knowing how to be safe with a gun is much better than not ever being taught except by TV and the movies.


People will have to accept the raw fact that the police and federal agencies exist only to solve crimes and enforce regulations after a crime has occurred. Rarely can any of these entities stop a violent crime before it happens, and when they do, it’s almost always with the aid of private citizens.


Other side effects of the end of all “gun-control”


Devices that lessen the loud “BANG” of a firearm will cease being regulated by the federal government at $200 per transfer, and years in prison if the tax stamp is not purchased. Gun manufacturers will offer weapons so equipped off the shelf to anyone who desires one. This alone will cause the rate of deafness in shooters to plummet, and will make shooting ranges “good neighbors” in many areas once again. In Europe, many shooting ranges are now required to use “silenced” guns for this reason.


Contrary to popular belief, a “silencer” does not make a gunshot undetectable any more than a muffler on a Mack truck makes the truck invisible. The device simply takes away the dangerous and annoying part of the gun’s report, which is still very distinctive.


Anyone who wants one will be able to purchase an automatic weapon. In the years following the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act, thousands of gun collectors have had to spend $200, and submit dozens of sets of fingerprints and identification per transfer to obtain automatic weapons. Not once has any of these weapons been used in a crime.


On the other hand, there have been hundreds of instances where an ILLEGAL automatic weapon was obtained on the black market and used in street crime by persons who could not legally purchase any kind of firearm. Almost all of these instances involve drug dealers or street gangs. One that I know of that did not involve street criminals was the case of a disgruntled police officer who used an issued submachine gun in a crime of violence.


Anyone who wants one, and can afford to purchase one, can have artillery, tanks, flamethrowers, bazookas, or missile launchers. Good luck finding the ammunition, though. Today it is fairly simple for street gangs to obtain LAW rockets and Stinger missiles off the black market, so the criminal’s access to such devices won’t change. Legal access to these items by the everyday citizen will not make much of a change in daily life since most folks are not interested in these items, and the high price will scare off most other people, leaving only the wealthy able to obtain them. I do have to shudder at the thought of people like Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, and Warren Buffet being in control of heavy artillery. Who knows what evil they might do?


Unintended consequences of gun control


The siege at Ruby Ridge was instigated over an unpaid $200 tax on a sawed-off shotgun that was planted on Randy Weaver by federal agents intent on infiltrating white-power groups in Idaho. The deaths of Weaver’s wife and child are direct results of the 1934 NFA as interpreted by overzealous tax collectors.


The siege at Waco which resulted in the poisoning and burning deaths of dozens of innocent people was caused by the allegation of an unpaid $200 tax on a machine gun, which was never found, and the possibility of unpaid taxes on “hand grenades”, also never found or proven.

Masked “ninja” agents have broken into homes, pets have been stomped to death, and businesses have been looted, all in the quest for perfect bookkeeping and attention to

bureaucratic detail.


Perceived problems with ending ”gun control”

What about school safety, you say?


Well, the shooters in every school shooting incident on the books violated dozens or hundreds of laws ranging from prohibitions against young people obtaining handguns and ammunition to federal laws prohibiting firearms on school property or within a certain distance thereof. If only one teacher or other faculty member had had access to a concealed weapon, many of these incidents could have been ended with little or no loss of life or injury. In at least two cases, in fact, citizens with legal weapons stood down the shooter and ended the threat.


For years before the current mentality about guns came into being, students routinely brought weapons to class and stored them in the cloakroom or their lockers in anticipation of some fun after school, hunting or plinking. School gun violence was unheard of. The difference today is certainly not the guns!


What about people carrying firearms into bars?


Well, people do that already, and there are laws on the books concerning assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, and acting while intoxicated. A responsible person leaves his gun home if he intends to get plastered – and, for that matter, a truly responsible person knows when to stop drinking in the first place. We can rely on old-fashioned personal responsibility, coupled with enforcement of century-old laws to handle these cases.


Horrors! People will be carrying guns into churches and hospitals!


Again, those people intent on violence do so now, regardless of the law. At least there would be a chance for the people in the church or hospital to stand up to the threat.


What about the threat to police making traffic stops?


Well, if someone is going to react violently to an officer of the law, again, they will do so regardless of the laws on the books. Normal people do not reach for a gun every time they are angry or frustrated. People who do react in this way are called criminals or mentally ill, and society has had effective ways of dealing with them for a long time before “gun control” became the rage.


What about domestic violence? We all know that a gun in the home is 40 times more likely to be used on family members than to stop a criminal.


This lie has been debunked dozens of times. Again, normal people do not react with violence to their children or spouses, and for those that do, the availability of a firearm may just as well be the thing that ends the violent behavior as the cause of death or injury. If you would not beat your spouse or child with hands or clubs, why would you attack them with a gun? The idea that the very presence of a firearm increases tensions or violence is a myth, and attributes mystical powers to the weapon.


But – people will be able to mail order guns again! Don’t you remember that JFK was shot with a mail order gun? (This was one reason for the 1968 Gun Control Act)


Well, until 1968, people could order any kind of gun they wanted from the Sears Catalog and have it delivered to their door. Before 1968, anyone with $150 could have a World War II vintage anti-tank cannon and ammunition dropped off at their house without even a check to see if the recipient was over the age of 6 years. There were no instances of mass shootings, or hostage takings, or even street violence that could be traced to any other cause than a criminal or mentally ill personality. A benefit of mail order was that people, handicapped individuals in particular, who could not get to a licensed gun dealer could obtain defensive weapons in their homes. How many people have been beaten or killed in their residences by criminals who broke in, since the law was changed to prevent the good citizen from easily getting a gun?


People will be carrying gun on trains, buses, and airplanes! We will have a huge increase in hijackings and terrorist acts!


Let me put it this way – all the “gun control” on the books, all 20,000-plus laws of it, did not stop one of the 9/11 hijackers from taking over an airplane and crashing it. One passenger legally carrying a pistol on each plane, or the presence of one armed flight attendant could have stopped every one of these attempts with little or no loss of life except to the perpetrators. Our Congress has recognized this by voting to allow cockpit crew to be armed in the future.


Oh, no! People will be able to buy “sniper rifles” and those horribly destructive .50 caliber cannons!


Any hunting rifle worthy of the name is by definition a “sniper rifle”. There have been no instances recorded where a crime was committed with a .50 caliber weapon of any kind. Besides, .50 caliber rifles are real good at punching ½” diameter holes in things – they are NOT rocket launchers!

Assault rifles! Don’t tell me you approve of legalizing “assault rifles”!

As a matter of fact, the term “assault rifle” is hugely misused. The term properly means a fully automatic or “select fire” weapon with a short barrel designed for close-in combat use. These guns are no more deadly than any other except for the fact that they can fire more rapidly. The biggest concern about “assault” weapons seems to be the fact that these guns are perceived as “ugly” by those people passing gun laws, not that they have ever been used widely in crimes. Before the 1994 “ban” on “assault rifles”, very few criminals interviewed had owned this kind of weapon, and even fewer had used on in a crime.

What about “junk guns’ and “Saturday Night Specials”?

Bad quality in a product is a concern for civil suits, not criminal law. Manufacturers who make a shoddy product that injures the user or others because of a malfunction can be dealt with in the same manner that car manufacturers or drug makers are handled when they release defective, dangerous merchandise.

The term “Saturday Night Special’ comes from a racially insensitive song from the 1920’s. The same people who urge more restrictions on legal guns should henceforth consider using this term “politically incorrect” and quit doing so.

Some guns are designed to be easily concealed. This makes it easy for criminals to carry weapons!

Those same guns were designed to meet state laws on concealed carry. In the states now issuing concealed carry permits, the weapon must not be readily identifiable to passers-by. These guns are also ideal for a woman's purse. Banning them just leaves another segment of the population unable to defend themselves. Criminals will keep right on finding ways to do their crimes regardless.

Inescapable facts

One armed passenger could have stopped the terrorists who took over the Achille Lauro cruise ship years back.

One armed passenger could have prevented the throat cutting of a bus driver recently, resulting in the crash of a fully loaded bus.

One armed member of a church congregation could have stopped a shooter before he killed several worshipers in another recent incident.

One armed faculty member could have stopped the shooters at Columbine before the police arrived and shot innocent bystanders in an effort to end the standoff.

Thousands of women who work nights and in dangerous areas could have defended themselves from attack and not been raped or murdered.

Thousands of people on the streets of our most heavily regulated cities could have stopped thousands of violent acts every year.


Thousands of people in the poor areas of our large cities were not able to afford to buy and possess a weapon to ward off street criminals and break-ins. These are the people most hurt by present day gun laws.


Many, if not all, of the state and local “gun control” laws passed before the 1934 National Firearms Act were designed to prevent immigrants and minorities from obtaining defensive weapons. These laws are all immoral in their face, and illegal under several present federal laws prohibiting discrimination.

Gun laws do not stop violence. Only being able to resist with force can do so. This is why the police and the military are armed. Preventing the good people of our nation from exercising their Constitutional rights to do the same has resulted in uncountable misery.

It’s long past time to start repealing.

Neat video

Stolen from IMAO

What's good for the goose...

Hoist by their own petard!

Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" might be the next thing I buy - or steal. Knowing your enemy is vital these days.

Important article

A long read, but very important to understanding our "rulers".

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

Set aside a few minutes to read this - and an hour or two to let it sink in.

Knowledge is power.

Zoning laws

I wrote this a few years ago, after moving to Beloit from Cary, Illinois. Somehow, I thought moving out here would allow more freedom. Silly me.

Zoning laws and Freedom

By

Charles A. Kuecker

03/28/06


I have in front of me an incomplete copy of the “Town of Beloit General Zoning Ordinance”, revised, and adopted August 5th, 2002.

In reading this document, I am struck by how far we have strayed from the visions our founders had for the way people live in this country.

Almost every aspect of life is regulated through this document. I am particularly concerned about the rules for agricultural land. The law has essentially made illegal the traditional family farm through rigid rules and definitions that seem to have been copied verbatim from some master document without any regard to the effect they will have on the community.

Following these rules, our country will never again see a traditional farmhouse, or a true Victorian “painted lady”, or a barn constructed by traditional methods. All of these have been outlawed in various ways.

It is illegal to open a small business on your property and “hang a shingle” letting your neighbors know that you are open for business – these activities now require a separate building in an area zoned for that purpose. Never again will we see a craftsman making furniture or an artist painting in their homes – because it violates the letter of the law.

It is illegal to have a second dwelling on your property in agricultural zoned areas. Say goodbye to a “mother in law” house, or giving your newlywed child a home on the family farm, so they can help out and preserve the farm.

It is illegal to have any employee on an agricultural plot, if the employee lives on site. You are prohibited by law from having a live-in nurse, farmhand, groundskeeper, or anyone else that might enable an elderly farmer to continue farming, or even living, on his own property.

It is illegal to store any “goods” for a “home occupation” on the property. One cannot pursue any trade that would produce a product, regardless of whether it would affect the quality of life in the neighborhood.

It is illegal to have a second story, or loft, over a garage, or to have an “accessory building” (read, barn) with a hayloft.

One cannot erect an antenna tower – such as used by radio amateurs – without first obtaining permission from the Town Board – who can refuse such permission as they feel fit. Simply stating rules for setbacks and maximum height is not enough – more control is required.

It is illegal under the law to post a political campaign sign in your front yard, again without a written permit from the Town Board. What ever happened to freedom of speech and our right to engage in political discussion?

A catch-all provision – Section 2.03 B 3 – prohibits “Undesirable Objects or Structures” – which directly prohibits a child’s tree house or playhouse, personal auto repairs if they cannot be performed within a garage, and anything else that the Town Board decides not to enjoy seeing. This gives those in power carte blanche to lord it over the people whom they should be responsible to, in any way that they see fit. In particular, this clause gives those in power a huge stick to quell political dissent, lest the dissenters be found in violation of this clause and fined, or imprisoned.

It is interesting to me that this document is rife with improper references – a Xeroxed copy of a list of amendments refers to sections that do not exist in the copy of the ordinance provided to us, and many things mentioned in the ordinance are not present – such as maps and included tables. The document is not available on-line, although the Town of Beloit has a beautiful web page describing the beauty of a housing development that was undertaken by the Town of Beloit without proper authorization by the people – a development that has lost the Town much money, and resulted in a lawsuit by some of the people supposedly served by the Town. The lawsuit was, of course, defended against using tax money – and the plaintiffs were ultimately bankrupted in their effort, as might be expected.

Since this document is not openly published on-line, it is impossible for citizens to read and understand it unless they go to the Town offices during business hours to purchase a copy. The Town of Beloit has not seen fit to provide a copy of the law to the local library – as any prudent person would expect them to do.

This last fall, an officer of the Town Board – charged with ferreting out violations of the ordinances, visited our property and issued a warning notice because we had several collector vehicles parked off a driveway, behind a garage – out of the public view – but illegal by the letter of the law that requires a “hard parking surface”. The officer bragged to my wife of issuing “over 400” tickets for violations – each of which would result in a fine of at least $100 for the property owner if not corrected in short order.

One neighbor has 10 acres of land, zoned agricultural, and was told he cannot keep “construction equipment” on his property, even though he runs a construction contracting business and was using the machinery on the property. None of his neighbors have ever raised an objection about this storage – but it’s against the letter of the law.

Another neighbor got a ticket for parking their own vehicle next to their driveway with a For Sale sign showing – because the car was resting on grass, not on the driveway. This was not a case of a pickup truck on blocks in weeds three feet high – this was a clean vehicle being sold by it’s owner – but again, in violation of the letter of the law.

Other neighbors were prosecuted for having a small two-wheel trailer, because it had no license plate – which is not required under Wisconsin law – parked on the grass next to their garage. I have a similar trailer I kept parked behind my garage – on the grass – next to that collector car I mentioned earlier. The enforcement officer neglected to mention it in his warning letter.

In my opinion, zoning laws are much abused and overweening in their scope, and a serious effort should be made to trim them back to the minimum required to preserve the quality of life in our community.

Let the impeachment begin!

Mr. Osama is pissing on our country again. He's been appointed the chair of the UN Security Council, in clear violation of the Constitution.

Article I, section 9.8 "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State."

Did Congress approve this?



So, let the impeachment begin. He would be charged with high treason - IF our government was not almost as corrupt and inept as the UN...

Correction - he may be inept and evil, but he's not a traitor:

Article III Section 3.

1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court.
2 The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

So, unless we declare the UN an enemy of the US, he's not a traitor. The declaration of the UN as an enemy of our country is long overdue, in my opinion, but our present politics prevent this from happening.

Oh, those racist teabaggers!

The Tea Party is surely racist. Here's proof!



H/t to Ace of Spades

Neat stuff

Saw this at View from the Porch:

A powered exoskeleton for the troops. I can see a slew of civilian applications - hell, I could use one around the farm...

Direct link

BS Remover Kit!

Seen at Theo Spark:

Islam - Religion of peace?

Very good video:

Interesting email from the GOP

Usually, I just trash stuff like this - but it's a fun thing, and it pokes fun at the biggest sad clown on the planet:



Try it yourself!

How long before Osama and the Demonrats pick up on this?

H/t to Red Ink Texas

China to count abortions as "carbon credits"

He just keeps doing it!

Osama does it again - another "recess" appointment

At least this expires about when HE does...

Interesting video - spread it far and wide

From Power Line - America Rising

Got published again

My letter about the state's attorney not enforcing un-Constitutional laws got published - on the same page as an editorial about the same issue:

EDITORIAL: Just enforce the state laws

Published: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 11:51 AM CDT

Another prosecutor pursues a personal agenda.

WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.

First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.

Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.

WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.

Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.

“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.

He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”

THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.

In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.

The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.

In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.

We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.

The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.

The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.


I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:

Dear Mr. Barth,

It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.

I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.

The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.

Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.

The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.

The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.

In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.

Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.

(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)

The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.

By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.

Regards,

Chuck Kuecker

Fundraiser

Looks like a worthy place to put some money, if you've got any left...

Here we go again!

Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it...

Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern

With Mr. Barack Hussein Osama playing Herbert Hoover...

A question

I have a question for anyone who knows something about paved roads and their maintenance. My daughter, the civil engineer draws a blank on this.

So far as I know, south central Wisconsin is unique in "maintaining" the asphalt paved county and township roads around here by spreading a nice thck coat of tar or oil, then a nice thick coating of fine pea gravel. The oil gets on anyone's vehicle who is unlucky enough to have to use the road, and the pea gravel is a special treat to two-wheeled traffic. My daughter came out today on her bike and had to negotiate some curves on a county road so treated - luckily she knows how to ride.

Is there actually any benefit to this technique, aside from making some politically connected people's brother-in-laws rich? It certainly ought to make the greenies happy, spreading all that oil to leach into the ground...

Appropriate for the Fourth of July!

Just saw this:

Felony charges for reporting within the Gulf spill zone

Just as we are celebrating our country's birth, our Glorious Leader's government does this. Somehow, it's appropriate.

Another link: Gulf of Mexico censorship

Texas to shutter a bunch of refineries

EPA closes refineries due to some bullshit rule that got bent. Big Dick's Place has the link...

Common sense in a county prosecutor-and stupidity elsewhere

Article in the Beloit Daily News:

Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws

Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.

Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.

Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.

I can dream, can't I?

Just sent this to the Daily News letters:

Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.

We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.

We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?

Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.

Osama wants immigration reform?

Another sent to the usual cretins:

NO. We do not need Mr. Obama's version of "reform" - we need the federal government to enforce the LAW as it is written.

What would actually be a true reform would be a law cleaning up the concept of "anchor babies" to limit automatic citizenship to babies born here to parents here legally who have previously expressed a real commitment to becoming citizens themselves.

Why not propose such a bill while telling Mr. Obama to quit fooling around when he's got real crises to deal with? Getting more Democratic voters is not a crisis to be addressed - it's a disaster for our country.

Kagan nomination

Sent to the usual suspects:

Vote NO on Ms. Kagan. She does not understand, nor does she respect the Constitution of the United States.

She also cannot answer a direct question directly. We've way too many shady politicians in Washington now, without appointing one to life tenure in our highest court.